Lightspeed is 0 I will proof that

[rudeonline]

Lightspeed is 0...I will proof that..

Hello, I would like to proof that lightspeed should be 0 or 1.
the 1 would mean the slowest movement that can exist.
It is very simple, If time is zero by lightspeed, movement should then be zero also. Time is like a train going 300.000 km/sec. By moving you slow your own speed in time. Moving is slowing down the speed of time and your own time.
If you would move 300.000 km/sec the train stops. If the train would going faster as 0 it would drive backward in time. For people in the train it would look like that the train ( witch is going backward in time) go's faster as 300.000 km/sec. Do I have to proof more? Can it be that simple?
:surprise:

 

[HallsofIvy]

First, the verb is "prove", not "proof". Second, this makes no sense at all. You assert that "lightspeed should be 0 or 1" but don't say in what units. (It's not at all uncommon for texts on relativity to choose unit so that the speed of light IS 1.)

Finally you give a garbled account of (I think) the fact that the time interval perceived by an observer slows as the observer's speed increases (relative to another observer) going to 0 as the first observer's speed goes to lightspeed. That says nothing at all about what lightspeed REALLY is (or in what units- do you even understand that every measurable quantity has to have units?).

 

[rudeonline]

I'm sorry for my English, I'm a dutchman so that can explain something...

 

[rudeonline]

See time as a train. with each railpart as a second. If you slow down the train, are the railpart then geting longer or do you need more time to pass them? If you stop there is only one railpart left.

 

[PFanalog57]

Hello, I would like to proof that lightspeed should be 0

This seems to be an interesting thought experiment since light is defined to have zero rest mass.

Say that if objects of zero rest mass shrank at a slower rate than more massive objects, the zero rest mass entities would appear to be rapidly expanding, the way a sphere of light does.

If two massive objects were "co-shrinking" they would not be able to determine what was happening - whether mass/energy is a fixed constant or if space-time is the fixed constant and matter was shrinking?

 

[rudeonline]

I have my theory written in dutch at www.rudolfhendriques.com[/URL] I will try to explain everything in Inglisch...I think the Earth with the sun etc is moving throu time with the speed of light. Imagine that we are moving into the direction of a black hole. What can stop us speeding throu space? I think nothing. Because we are moving with the speed of light we are getting smaller. Each meter forward we become a meter smaller. So we would stay more our less on the same spot all the time just getting smaller. If we switch on a light it would stay there where it was switcht on. We are moving into the direction of time an getting smaaler. It would look like the light is moving, that just how it look like. Also because we think we would go back in time if we travel faster as lightspeed it would mean that at lightspeed the time is zero. Then because speed is distance in time it would mean that if there is no time there is no space. The universe is like a big balloon an we are somewhere in the middle. Not the balloon is getting bigger, we are shrinking. From outside the balloon could be a black hole, light can not escape from our universe.

 

[Alkatran]

I think he's talking from the photon's perspective. Something about if we reach lightspeed the time passing is 0 and so is the distance, so the speed is 0. (Which doesn't make much sense, since 0/0 is undefined)

 

[loseyourname]

The speed of light is measured to be c. A photon can't measure its own speed, so this says nothing about what the photon itself experiences.

 

[Alkatran]

Oh I get what he means. He's saying that when you switch a lightbulb on, the light sphere created stays in the same spot, but we are shrinking in such a way that makes it look like the light is expanding at c.

Too bad this all breaks down if you have light moving towards the bulb from other sources.

 

[rudeonline]

That's why I think that the speed could be 1. one stands for the slowest movement possible. If it was really zero it coult not exist. Maybe it's a good point to think in more as 4 dimensions. How this dimension would look like I do not know yet but I'm sure that there will be more as 4 dimensions what we have to find out.

 

[Guardian01]

slow...speed is not constant...can't be one! HeHe

 

[Guardian01]

eek...zero cannot exist!

 

[Alkatran]

That's why I think that the speed could be 1. one stands for the slowest movement possible. If it was really zero it coult not exist. Maybe it's a good point to think in more as 4 dimensions. How this dimension would look like I do not know yet but I'm sure that there will be more as 4 dimensions what we have to find out.

I would argue that 0.75 < 0.8 < 0.9 < 1, thus 1 is not the slowest speed possible.

 

[rudeonline]

That's what I try to tell. If you say the speed is 0.7 or 0.8 whatever 1 is the slowest speed what can exist. 0.7 should be writtenas 1 then. Is there by the way an accelaration speed for light? It could explain why 2 sources of light can reach eachtother.

 

[Alkatran]

That's what I try to tell. If you say the speed is 0.7 or 0.8 whatever 1 is the slowest speed what can exist. 0.7 should be writtenas 1 then. Is there by the way an accelaration speed for light? It could explain why 2 sources of light can reach eachtother.

That is the one of the most foolish things I've read.

You just said .5 = 1. That's only true if you change units.

 

[rudeonline]

maybe an misunderstand but if one should be taken as the lowest speed possible you can not use 0.5 as something. 1 is the lowest, lower as 1 schould be 0 then. It's not so foolish, just try to use your imagination. Everything start with a first step. Not with a half step.

 

[ahrkron]

I think you need to state clearly what you are doing.

First, it seems you're trying to say that light travels at the lowest possible speed.

Then, you seem to strongly favor the use of time and distance units in which c = 1. An example of such units would be the second[/color] for time, and the lightsecond[/color] for distance. By definition, c=1 in such scheme.

The first problem I see with this is that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of speeds smaller than that of light. I see no logical necessity for light being the slowest entity.

Second, the use of different units should be inconsequential to your model.

 

[Lama]

"Let us say that I am a photon.

I can be in 0 rest-mass, I am (maybe) forever young, but do I have a 0-size?

If I have a 0-size then I cannot be found as a center of any place, which is not itself a 0-dim_place".


A real 0-dim_place cannot be observed by any measurement tool and we have no information about it.

Since Light is a measurable phenomena where position and momentum are its complementary properties, we can conclude that time itself is under the laws of Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is deeply connected to h plank constant.

In short, the speed of light depends on the quantum duality (wave/particle or momentum/position) properties of the photon.

First let us start by examine some today's physics points of view of what is called a field and a particle.

If I am not wrong then the concept of a field is used to describe the common foundation of some particles with particular properties.

Each particle which belongs to some distinguished collection of properties, its existence is first of all based on its interactions with its particular field.

It means that no measurable particle is totally separated from the other measurable particles that share the same field.

If each particle is also its own field, then a collection of particles cannot have more then one particle, which is not the case by today's physics.

"We should mention two possible points of confusion. Firstly, the aforementioned "field" and "particle" descriptions do not refer to wave-particle duality. By "particle", we refer to entities which possesses both wave and point-particle properties in the usual quantum mechanical sense; for example, these "particles" are generally not located at a fixed point, but have a certain probability of being found at each position in space. What we refer to as a "field" is an entity existing at every point in space, which regulates the creation and annihilation of the particles" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory )

So, quantum particles are described by momentum/position or wave/particle duality.

A Langauge which is based on excluded-middle reasoning is not (in my opinion) the appropriate language to deal with quantum phenomena.

In an excluded-middle reasoning two opposites are simultaneously contradicting each other, and the result is no middle.

In an included-middle reasoning two opposites are simultaneously preventing/defining each other, and the result is a middle.

The best known example is the duality of a photon, which has both a wave and a particle properties that preventing (the measurement of its accurate place prevents the accurate information about its momentum, and vise versa) and defining (one property cannot exist without the other) each other.

For example, please see this picture: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/comp.jpg

As you see the two black profiles and the white vase are clearly preventing/defining each other.

Please also see http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CompLogic.pdf , which is a short paper of mine on included-middle reasoning.

In short, in my opinion, we cannot ignore QM , if we want to find the accurate speed of light.

 

[rudeonline]

I think you need to state clearly what you are doing.

First, it seems you're trying to say that light travels at the lowest possible speed.

Then, you seem to strongly favor the use of time and distance units in which c = 1. An example of such units would be the second[/color] for time, and the lightsecond[/color] for distance. By definition, c=1 in such scheme.

The first problem I see with this is that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of speeds smaller than that of light. I see no logical necessity for light being the slowest entity.

Second, the use of different units should be inconsequential to your model.

My point of view tells that we are traveling throu space with the speed of light. If you are standing still you have the highest speed. By moving you slow a little bit in time. So how faster you seem to go how closer you will be at point 0. If you finaly reach the speed of light you will see the Earth moving with 300.000 km/sec. If you go faster the time would go backwards and you will see people on Earth moving back in time. Because the person traveling with lightspeed can know that time on Earth is running, we are getting older, he can conclude that he must be standing still in time and space.

 

[berty]

Relative viewpoint

Alkatran: Oh I get what he means. He's saying that when you switch a lightbulb on, the light sphere created stays in the same spot, but we are shrinking in such a way that makes it look like the light is expanding at c.

Doesn't it depend on your viewpoint relative to the event?
You all seem to be viewing it from outside, so you can differentiate between the central area staying still (0) and the light sphere moving away @C (1) and the central area shrinking @C (1) and the light sphere staying still (0) relative to the background.
If you were at the centre or on the light sphere boundary you wouldn’t be able to tell whether the centre or the light sphere were moving @C relative to your viewpoint?

Alkatran: Too bad this all breaks down if you have light moving towards the bulb from other sources.

Again, it depends on your viewpoint relative to the event.
Another thing, wouldn’t ‘0’ equal the state of the Cosmos when entropy/disorder were at maximum ie:- no usable energy available, as every point in the Cosmos had the same temperature (0˚K) as every other point?

 

[stewarta]

he is misunderstanding the relativity of time... time doesn't slow as you speed up, it is observed to slow... that is the root problem with this whole thing

 

[rudeonline]

he is misunderstanding the relativity of time... time doesn't slow as you speed up, it is observed to slow... that is the root problem with this whole thing

Time is slowing down if you move. Astronauts are always missing a piece of time after a trip. How faster they would go, how more time they loose. This is the same for you on earth, but it's so little that we don't count this.

 

[rudeonline]

For those who understand dutch...www.rudolfhendriques.com[/URL] , there you can find my complete theory. Will be available in english soon.

 

[Alkatran]

Time is slowing down if you move. Astronauts are always missing a piece of time after a trip. How faster they would go, how more time they loose. This is the same for you on earth, but it's so little that we don't count this.

Time slowing down is due to you moving faster through the "time" part of space-time.

Basicly, if you appear to be going at half the normal speed through time (see any TV show) to someone else you're actually traveling FASTER through time than them. I'm still having trouble grasping this, but it's logical.

 

[pallidin]

Hello, I would like to proof that lightspeed should be 0 or 1.
the 1 would mean the slowest movement that can exist.
It is very simple, If time is zero by lightspeed, movement should then be zero also. Time is like a train going 300.000 km/sec. By moving you slow your own speed in time. Moving is slowing down the speed of time and your own time.
If you would move 300.000 km/sec the train stops. If the train would going faster as 0 it would drive backward in time. For people in the train it would look like that the train ( witch is going backward in time) go's faster as 300.000 km/sec. Do I have to proof more? Can it be that simple?
:surprise:

Perhaps I am not understanding your statements correctly, but I feel you are confused about what "time" is, and it's relationship to everything.
With regard to "lightspeed" I find your statement even more curious, because if you define the speed of something, you also define it's time in relationship to the distanced measured.
So, if lightspeed were zero, than the distanced traveled would be zero, thus it's time is zero. But, under those conditions light would not go anywhere nor be perceived!
Time is a concept; it is a relationship of change. Change cannot exist simultaneously with the original condition else there would be no "change"
Agreed?
Thus, when perceiving change we ascribe an arbitrary or classical interval to assist us in this distinction of "change" in relationship to itself or some other perspective. This is called TIME.
Can "time" be perceived as zero in a localized environment? Certainly. But, since every localized environment is part of a dynamically changing universal environment, "time" itself will never cease to exist because it is a relational concept of change, and NOTHING in our universe is 100% static.

 

[rudeonline]

excuse me if I don't understand you correctly, my English is not so good. What I understood from the theory if something would travel with lightspeed is that the space around the object would reduce to zero. So if a light foton have this speed it will be everywhere arround us whithout moving. First because the space arroud the foton is zero. Second because the time compare to us would be zero. I think that if the time is zero space can not exist. My conclusion is that we are traveling with lightspeed throu space and light shows us where we where before. We are shrinking in 3 dimensional directions. The universe is not growing but we are getting smaller. Try to see the universe as a baloon. The outside of the ballooon is a black hole. We are in the middle getting smaller. A light signal from us never can reach the outside of the balloon because our speed is 300.000 km/sec to the middle direction. The light foton is standing stil compare with the border of the universe. only if we find a way to overspeed the lichtspeed we can escape from our universe. We have to find a way to go slower as standing still.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Hello, I would like to proof that lightspeed should be 0 or 1.

By saying this, you are simply normalizing speed to a unitless quantitiy similar to probability.

\frac{1}{v_{max}} \int \frac{\partial v(t)}{\partial t} dt = 1

but \frac{\partial v(t)}{\partial t} is really an acceleration. For this to make sense, you still need a maximum speed. And for all practical purposes, we can properly assumed to be the speed of light in vacuum.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Using c as max speed,

\frac{1}{c} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} a(t) dt = 1

 

[Antonio Lao]

And to get speed zero, all we need is a metric invariance.

v(t) = \frac {dx(t)}{dt}

v=0 iff x(t) is a constant, i.e., x does not change with time.

 

[Antonio Lao]

If x does not change with time, then the object is said to be at rest. Is this the absolute state of rest that many are looking for? Is this the state of the ubiquitous aether? Or state of the vacuum? Can we say that the vacuum is a state of metric invariance?

 

[Antonio Lao]

And by the application of different types of coordinate transformations (translation, rotation, reflection, scaling), it appears that the metric can change only by the scaling transformation and that is the purpose of renormalization.

 

[pallidin]

Localized time(or any function for that matter) may be manipulated in any way one desires for specific results, but in no way does it alter it's dependence, and inherent relationship, with the universe.
To justify otherwise, you must show complete and discreet separateness. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such discreetness exists, thus any theory based on that fails by virtue of foundation. Do you offer ANY evidence? I mean REAL evidence, not localized mathematical equations.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I mean REAL evidence, not localized mathematical equations.

I wish I was born an experimentalist so that I can find some physical proofs for you. But the problem is that I am really a localized being and in comparison to the entire universe, I am truly a mathematical point. I need to reach the other side of the universe, at its boundary (if there is one?) and also looking in from the outside in order to know what the universe really looks like by me separating with it.

 

[Antonio Lao]

There is a saying that says: you cannot step into the same river twice. I have the same problem with the river of time. What I did I cannot undo and all regrets are just furhter wastes of time.

 

[pallidin]

All is good. After all, this is Theory Development and most everything is welcome for consideration. In regular life I suppose we call it "brain-storming", wherein all the facts might not be there but we nonetheless toss about the idea(s) both for intellectual enjoyment and potential discovery. I love it!

 

[rudeonline]

I will try to explain how we see things while light is standing still. Imagine that we are moving throu a tunnel with lightspeed. We only can look in forward direction.

Everything that is back of us is past time and everything in front of us is future. We only can observe the point of now. Your eyes are picking up the energy of everything in front of you.

Because you are moving in the same direction off all mass you pick up their energie when you pass the place where everything in front of you was before. The object leafs a bitt of there mass in a form of energy as light.

Because the tunnel is getting thinner each second thing in front of you appear smaller when your eyes pick up their energie. If you move to an object your getting closer into the same time, so thing are getting bigger into the same proportions as you.

Try to see this as falling down from the sky with some parachutists. When you all fall the same speed it seems like your're not moving. The same thing is happening without whole planet inc the sun and all other mass.

The light we see is just a trail of energy witch other mass has left before us. For this reason we see everything always a bit later as the real time. But then so that how closer objects are near each other how smaller the time difference.

Because this tunnel has some kind of curve and we are moving with the maximum speed when we are not moving agains this speed we all notice more our less the same speed of time. What now hapeens when you move is that you take a shorter way throu this tunnel, you move against the curve but slow down in speed. By lightspeed you would stand still in this tunnel. So speeding is slowing down in time.

If you stop speeding agains time you have taken a shorter way throu this tunnel but will end at the same point at someone's time wo was "not" moving. For this reason space travellers notice a time difference with people who where not moving.

Sorry for my bad enlisch but I hope I made my theory more clear.

 

[Antonio Lao]

but I hope I made my theory more clear.

In a sense, your theory is just like Einstein's theories without the math.

 

[drag]

If light speed were zero, there would be no time,
and I believe my message came after yours.

 

[rudeonline]

If light speed were zero, there would be no time,
and I believe my message came after yours.

I try to explain that we are moving 300.000 km/sec and that the lightspeed is zero. In my theory we are traveling throu a tunnel and everything is in front of you in the tunnel. If you leaf a message with lightspeed it will stand still in the tunnel. If I travel behind you with the same speed as you I will pick up the signal with my own speed, 300.000 km/sec.

 

[pallidin]

This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. It is so bizarre in its suggested foundation that I must exit stage-left for more fertile, reasonable and sane grounds of inquiry.

 

[rudeonline]

x + y = x/y
x = x/x
y = y/y
c = x/y

If lightspeed is 300.000 km/sec time and space are 1.

300.000 km + 1 sec = 300.000 km/sec

300.000/300.000 + 1/1 = 1 distance/sec
1`+ 1 = 1/1
2 + 2 = 2/2
3 + 3 = 3/3
only 0 + 0 = 0
Lightspeed is zero. Time to wake up.

 

[Alkatran]

x + y = x/y
x = x/x
y = y/y
c = x/y

If lightspeed is 300.000 km/sec time and space are 1.

300.000 km + 1 sec = 300.000 km/sec

300.000/300.000 + 1/1 = 1 distance/sec
1`+ 1 = 1/1
2 + 2 = 2/2
3 + 3 = 3/3
only 0 + 0 = 0
Lightspeed is zero. Time to wake up.

There is no way someone is this stupid. He has to be trolling.

RULE: x/x = 1, except when x = 0
RULE: x + x = 2x
IF x/x = x+x then 2x = 1 thus X = 1/2 = 0.5

1 + 1 = 2
1 / 1 = 1
2 IS NOT EQUAL TO 1

2 + 2 = 4
2 / 2 = 1
4 IS NOT EQUAL TO 1

Oh, and by the way, 1 + -1 = 0, 2 + 3 + -5 = 0
Or maybe you meant:
2*x = 0
x = 0